Individuals involved with European Union (EU) intellectual property issues will want this unique reference that originated as a PhD thesis. It provides an analysis of Article 5(2)(b) of the EU Copyright Directive, related to permissible private copying, and additional EU and national case law. Just as the US has permissible uses of copyrighted materials, so too, at least in theory, has the EU. As a very reader-friendly reference, it will be a valuable addition to a legal collection.

The topic of permissible private copying is logically developed in chapters that discuss the permitted activities, define the legal terms “private” and “non-commercial,” and provide a three-step test for concluding that the use is in fact non-commercial in nature. Restrictions that may be imposed upon copying are additionally reviewed in chapters concerned with fair compensation, technological restrictions to prevent copying, and contractual restrictions.

The author notes that the law is unclear concerning the boundaries of permissible copying and that owners do contest uncompensated copying. What Europeans term the “exhaustion doctrine” and the US calls the “first-sale doctrine” provide some legal justification for copying. However, “the exhaustion doctrine has severely eroded in the digital context.” The author additionally notes that the right to privacy, a significant factor in EU law, may also provide a private justification for copying.

The book contains several very helpful features. There is an alphabetical index of court cases by jurisdiction linked to page references in the book: EU, national, Canadian, World Trade Organization (WTO), US, and Australia. In like manner, there is a separate table by nation of legislation and directives. Beyond this, there is a comprehensive bibliography and comprehensive index. An appendix provides a schematic overview of how an alphabetical list of nations addresses private copying. These items make it easy for readers to quickly locate relevant material.

The legal topic, while technical, is readable by an educated layperson. A six-page conclusion sums up the author’s understanding of the current role of Article 5(2)(b), noting the uncertainty inherent in current law and potentially undue restrictions on copying, such as back-up needs. Anyone concerned with copyright enforcement or permissible uses of copyrighted materials will want this reference.